Re: 1.5.0-alpha1 tarballs up for testing/signing

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:

> I'd like to roll alpha2 tomorrow, but the bindings problems (especially
> the perl bindings failures), make it seem like a futile effort. Should
> the bindings be blockers for alpha release? Should we just focus on the
> core code, and let then block on the bindings for beta releases?

No one wants to see us release software with bugs in it, but I think
our goal should be to have a great GA release, not great alpha
releases. The point of the alpha release is to get users to try it
and report back on the problems that our test suite does not catch.
We can't do that if we do not release them. Using this same line of
reasoning, I would rather see us release these without the formal
signature process. If a bad bug that is fixable is found, then just
roll a new release. If we are not doing all the signature stuff it
should be relatively easy to get a new release tarball up. After all,
Hyrum is currently posting nightly tarballs. I think the benefit of
the named alpha/beta releases is that the it easily shows up in svn
--version and that makes it easy to talk to users and tell them when a
problem is known and has been fixed.

Anyway, assuming we are not going to change our procedure, +1 on
rolling a new alpha2.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org